Greta Speaking in Cincinnati at FIG@20!

If you’re anywhere near the Cincinnati area, you should check out this awesome conference I’m speaking at this weekend!

It’s the FIG@20 conference — the 20th Anniversary Celebration of the Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. FIG@20 promises to be an awesome time: the other speakers include PZ Myers, Jamila Bey, JT Eberhard, American Atheist president Dave Silverman, Darrel Rey, (the creator of the “Sex and Secularism” study), Tom Flynn, and Tim Madigan. Lunch and dinner on Saturday are included in the registration fee, which is very reasonable, and is ridiculously cheap for students.

Details are below. If you’re anywhere near the Cincinnati area, I hope to see you there!

EVENT/ HOSTS: FIG@20 conference — the 20th Anniversary Celebration of the Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky
DATES: Saturday, October 16 – Sunday, October 17
DATE AND TIME OF MY TALK: Saturday, October 16, 11:00 am
LOCATION: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Cincinnati Airport
2826 Terminal Drive
Hebron, Kentucky, 41048
SUMMARY: See above
COST: $70.00; $25.00 for students; $50.00 for FIG members. Price includes Saturday and Sunday Pass and Lunch and Anniversary Dinner on Saturday.
NOTE: Child care for children ages 7-16 will be provided by Camp Quest, for $25.00 per child.

Greta Speaking in Cincinnati at FIG@20!
{advertisement}

Atheists and the American Cancer Society: What To Do About It?

So yesterday, my story was posted in AlterNet about the American Cancer Society turning down a $250,000 matching offer from Todd Stiefel and the Foundation Beyond Belief, apparently because they were atheists. If you’re ticked off about this, the obvious next question is: What can I do about it?

That’s a really good question, and I wish I had a perfectly fabulous, magic- bullet answer. (I would love to see suggestions for action items in the comments!) The less perfectly fabulous but still reasonably good answers I can think of off the top of my head fall into roughly three categories:

1) Spread the word. Get word out about this story. Let your friends and family — atheist and non-atheist — know about it. The more people know about this and are talking about it, the more pressure gets put on the ACS to change their policy.

2) Try to get the story into the mainstream media. (I guess this qualifies as a steroid-injected version of #1.) Again: The more people know about this, the more pressure gets put on the ACS to change their policy. If anyone has contacts in the MSM, let them know what’s going on.

3) Let the American Cancer Society know how you feel. Write them, call them, email them. Or just take ten seconds to post your reaction on their Facebook page. As of this writing (about 1am California time on October 12), the American Cancer Society Facebook page is being deluged with posts about this matter. The overwhelming majority of posts on their wall right now are angry responses to this news. The more we keep that up, the more pressure gets put on the ACS to change their policy.

What else? Thoughts?

Atheists and the American Cancer Society: What To Do About It?

From the Archives: Why “The Universe Is Perfectly Fine-Tuned For Life” Is a Terrible Argument for God

Since I moved to the Freethought Blogs network, I have a bunch of new readers who aren’t familiar with my greatest hits from my old, pre-FTB blog. So I’m linking to some of them, about one a day, to introduce them to the new folks.

Today’s archive treasure: Why “The Universe Is Perfectly Fine-Tuned For Life” Is a Terrible Argument for God. The tl;dr: Many arguments for religion and against atheism are so bad, they can’t even be considered arguments. They’re not serious attempts to offer evidence or reason supporting the existence of God. They’re simply attempts to deflect legitimate questions, or ad-hominem insults of atheists, or the baffling notion that “I want to believe” is a good argument, or attempts to just make the questions go away. But some arguments for religion do sincerely offer evidence and reason for the existence of God. They’re sincere arguments, so I’m going to do them the honor of taking them seriously and eviscerating them. In this piece, I take on the argument from fine-tuning: the argument that the odds of the physical conditions for life to come into being are so unlikely, it makes no sense to think they happened by chance — so we have to assume they were intentionally created.

A nifty pull quote:

If the universe was “fine-tuned” for life by a perfect, all-powerful God… why did he do such a piss-poor job of it? Why was the 93- billion- light- years- across universe created 13.73 billion years ago… just so the fragile process of human life in one tiny solar system could blink into existence for a few hundred thousand years, a billion years at the absolute most, and then blink out again? Why could an asteroid or a solar flare or any number of other astronomical incidents wipe out that life at any time? If the universe was “fine-tuned” for life to come into being, why is the ridiculously overwhelming majority of it created to be so inhospitable to life? (Even if there’s life on other planets, which is hypothetically possible, the point still remains: Why is the portion of the Universe that’s hospitable to life so absurdly minuscule?)

Atheists are often accused by religious believers of being arrogant. But it’s hard to look at the fine-tuning argument and see any validity to that at all. Believers are the ones who are arguing that the Universe was created just so humanity could come into existence… and that the immeasurable vastness of stars and galaxies far beyond our reach and even beyond our knowledge was still, somehow, put there for us. Maybe so we could see all the pretty blinky lights in the sky. Atheists are the ones who accept that the Universe was not made for us. Atheists are the ones who accept that we are a lucky roll of the dice; an unusual bio-chemical process that’s happening on one planet orbiting one star that happens, for a brief period, to have conditions that allow for it. (I know this is kind of a buzz-kill; here’s a nice humanist philosophy about it that might cheer you up.)

Yes, the existence of humanity is unlikely. But so is my personal existence, and the existence of the Messier 87 galaxy, and the roll of a die in the sequence 3241154645. That doesn’t mean these things were designed to happen. We are a puddle that evolved to fit in a convenient hole. There is no reason to think that the hole was created for us. And there is every reason to think that it was not.

Enjoy!

From the Archives: Why “The Universe Is Perfectly Fine-Tuned For Life” Is a Terrible Argument for God

Is Atheist Money Too Controversial for the American Cancer Society?

The American Cancer Society may have turned down a potential half-million dollar donation because it came from a non-theistic organization.

I’ll say this clearly, right up front: The American Cancer Society did not explicitly reject a massive donation offer from a non-theistic organization on the basis of it being a non-theistic organization.

That was not the stated reason given for rejecting a matching offer of $250,000 from the Foundation Beyond Belief and the Todd Stiefel Foundation to sponsor a national team in the upcoming Relay for Life. (An offer that, as a matching offer, was likely to bring in a total of half a million dollars for the American Cancer Society.) Nobody at the ACS has ever said, in words, “We don’t want our organization to be associated with atheists. It’s too controversial. We don’t want atheist money.” And when asked if this was the case, they have denied it.

It’s just difficult to reach any other conclusion. In the place of clear explanations, there has been an ongoing series of evasions, imprecisions, conflicting answers, moved goalposts, apathy, and even hostility.

*

Thus begins my latest piece for AlterNet, Is Atheist Money Too Controversial for the American Cancer Society? To find out more, read the rest of the piece.

Oh, and a quick heads-up about the AlterNet gig to new readers of this blog: I write regularly for the online political magazine AlterNet, usually every two weeks. I typically link to the pieces when they’re first published, and then reprint them about a week later here in my own blog. Also, AlterNet is an excellent magazine, but the comment threads are often, shall we say, challenging. Just so you know. Enjoy!

Is Atheist Money Too Controversial for the American Cancer Society?

Violet

As promised — here is the actual obituary for our cat Violet, with pictures.

Violet was the diva of our family. She was absolutely certain that the world revolved around her, and she veered between demanding our full and immediate attention, and ignoring us entirely. She would plonk down on our chest and smugly rest her paws on our throat; plonk down on our lap regardless of whether there was a laptop already there; weave in and out of our feet hysterically yowling for attention (usually in the morning when we were trying to leave for work — her instincts for bad timing were almost unerring). And then, fifteen minutes later, she would get up for no apparent reason, wander off, and ignore us for hours.

But that meant that, when she hung out with us, we knew that she really wanted to be there. When she plonked on our chest for ten minutes in the evening and then settled in at our feet for the night; when she burrowed under the covers in the morning and snuggled into the crook of my arm; when she spent an evening switching back and forth between my lap and Ingrid’s, resting her chin on an arm or a thigh with that smug, trusting, blissed-out look… we knew that she liked us, at least a little bit. That’s always been one of the things I like best about cats — you never have to worry about whether they’re putting up with you just to be polite.

And Violet was a very classic cat. In fact, we used to joke about how Violet had the standard issue cat personality: affectionate, snooty, self-possessed, unpredictable. But she was, of course, also very much her own cat, with her own quirks: her fascination with fast-moving light (she would chase the reflection off a watch face for hours), her uncanny ability to come up with brand new ways to annoy us in the morning, her weird thing about licking photographs and plastic, her ridiculously loud purr that could actually wake us out of a sound sleep, her life and death struggles with the yoga mat.

Violet was also an exceptional beauty. Her stylish black and white markings, her pink nose with the little black dot, her unsettling eye coloring with one green and one blue… I know that every cat owner thinks their cat is the prettiest, but Violet really was quite striking, and visitors always made a fuss over her. We used to say that she knew what a beauty she was, and while of course that’s silly, she did seem to know which poses got the best reactions out of us. (The crossed paws; the tuck and roll; the paw over the nose; the aforementioned stretched-out chin resting on a now-paralyzed human body part.) She was hard to photograph — the black fur tended to just disappear into the camera unless the lighting was just right, and the different colored eyes were hard to catch — but the good photos we did get are very distinctive. And I think they capture her diva essence.

We miss her.

Pictures below the jump. Continue reading “Violet”

Violet

From the Archives: Why “Life Has To Have Been Designed” Is a Terrible Argument for God’s Existence

Since I moved to the Freethought Blogs network, I have a bunch of new readers who aren’t familiar with my greatest hits from my old, pre-FTB blog. So I’m linking to some of them, about one a day, to introduce them to the new folks.

Today’s archive treasure: Why “Life Has To Have Been Designed” Is a Terrible Argument for God’s Existence. The tl;dr: A lot of arguments for religion aren’t even arguments: they’re deflections, excuses for why the believer isn’t making an argument, bigoted insults, expressions of wishful thinking, complaints that atheists are mean bad people to even ask for an argument, heartfelt wishes that atheists would just shut up. But some believers do take the question “Why do you believe in God?” seriously. So I want to address those arguments, and dismantle them into tiny tiny pieces. In this post — the second of a series — I dismantle the argument from design.

A nifty pull quote:

Not to be snarky, but: Have you heard of this Darwin fellow?

Enjoy!

From the Archives: Why “Life Has To Have Been Designed” Is a Terrible Argument for God’s Existence

Atheist Arguments — Public or Private?

When atheists debate believers about religion and atheism — should we keep those debates private, or make them public? Or does it depend on the situation?

This is one of my “thinking out loud” pieces. I’m trying to decide what I think about this, and I want y’all to help me.

Back in April, JT Eberhard gave a talk at the American Atheists conference, with an idea that struck me strongly. (Lots of ideas that struck me strongly, actually, but one in particular that I’m talking about today.) He said that private debates about religion were a waste of time. He said that, when believers say they’re concerned about our immortal soul and ask to sit down over coffee and debate atheism versus religion, we shouldn’t just say, “Sure, why not.” Instead, we should say, “Sure — can I videotape the conversation and put it on YouTube?” If someone emails us and says, “I saw something you wrote about atheism, here’s why I don’t agree”… we shouldn’t email them back saying, “Sure, let’s debate.” We should email them back and say, “Sure, let’s debate — can I post your letter on my Facebook page or my blog, and discuss it with you there?”

This accomplishes two things. First, it screens out people who aren’t serious. As JT argued: It’s amazing how quickly their concern for your immortal soul vanishes when they’re faced with making a fool of themselves in public. And second: If they do say yes? They’ve given you a public forum for making your case.

I was very struck by this idea. To the point where I included it in my talk at the Secular Student Alliance national conference in July: the one on why arguing about religion isn’t a waste of time, and what our strategies about it should be. And I included this idea when I posted an outline of that talk in my blog.

But when I posted that outline to my blog, a lot of people pushed back on this idea. They said that private debates about religion were most emphatically not a waste of time. And many of them gave examples of how they’d changed people’s minds about religion in private, one- on- one conversations.

So now I’m rethinking. I want to be a good skeptic, and not hang onto an idea just because it’s appealing to me or because I’ve already gone out on a limb about it.

Okay. Here are my thoughts. Continue reading “Atheist Arguments — Public or Private?”

Atheist Arguments — Public or Private?

From the Archives: Why “Everything Has a Cause” is a Terrible Argument for God

Since I moved to the Freethought Blogs network, I have a bunch of new readers who aren’t familiar with my greatest hits from my old, pre-FTB blog. So I’m linking to some of them, about one a day, to introduce them to the new folks.

Today’s archive treasure: Why “Everything Has a Cause” is a Terrible Argument for God. The tl;dr: Most arguments for religion aren’t really arguments, but instead are excuses or attempts to evade the argument. But when asked why they believe in God, some believers take the question seriously, and try to give arguments and evidence for their belief. So I want to return the favor, take these arguments seriously, and show exactly how terrible they are. In this post — the first of a series — I dismantle the “first cause” argument, the argument that things have to have causes, and that cause has to be God.

A nifty pull quote:

Many astronomers and astrophysicists think that the question “Where did the universe come from?” might someday be answerable. In fact, many of them strongly suspect that the answer may indeed call into question our basic understanding of cause and effect… in much the same way that Einstein’s theories called into question our basic understanding of matter and energy and space, and Galileo’s theories called into question our basic understanding of the structure of the universe. (For instance: One idea that’s being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself… and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened “before” time itself began.) They think “Where did physical existence come from?” may be an answerable question… and they’re busily researching possible answers.

The “God did it” answer doesn’t do this. It doesn’t pose possible ways of investigating whether the God hypothesis might be the right answer to this question. It basically just says, “Everything has to have a cause… except God, who by definition can do anything.” It’s a non-answer. It insists that every question have a valid, comprehensible, cause- and- effect answer… except questions about God. It’s like a parent answering every question with, “Because I say so.” It’s what atheists call the “God of the gaps”: it takes any question about the physical world that’s currently unanswered by science, and says, “Oh, we don’t know the answer to that, therefore it must be God.” It’s like taking every empty space in the coloring book, and reflexively filling it in with a blue crayon.

Enjoy!

From the Archives: Why “Everything Has a Cause” is a Terrible Argument for God

The Disadvantages of Being a Man

Jason Thibeault at Lousy Canuck has an excellent post on his blog: The Disadvantages of Being a Man. In it, he talks about many of the specific, practical ways that rigid gender expectations hurt men… including many of the issues that the “men’s rights activist” movement focuses on, such as child custody and the expectation that men be cannon fodder. And he does it from a thoroughly feminist, egalitarian, anti-patriarchal perspective, acknowledging that while rigid gender expectations do hurt both men and women, they overwhelmingly hurt women more, and they’re best dealt with, not by women and men treating one another as enemies, but by women and men joining together to take these expectations down. Thus making it clear that you can take these issues seriously without being a hateful, venomous, misogynist. Job well done. Check it out.

The Disadvantages of Being a Man

From the Archives: Lydia’s Cancer, and Atheist Philosophies of Death

Today’s piece from the archives, for obvious reasons:

Lydia’s Cancer, and Atheist Philosophies of Death.

Summary: It’s often assumed — by both religious believers and many atheists — that death is religion’s big trump card, and the comfort offered by religion in the face of death and grief will always be more powerful, useful and appealing than any non-religious philosophy. In this post, I put the lie to this idea, and talk about how an atheist and naturalist philosophy can actually make death and grief easier to manage — among other things, because it doesn’t involve denial and self-deception.

Pull quote:

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how atheism, and humanism, can help us deal with death — and with life. Not just in an abstract philosophical sense; not just in a “creating a meaningful frame for our lives” sense. I’ve been thinking about how we can apply atheist philosophies in a practical way. I’ve been thinking, not just about how these philosophies can help us face death, but about how they can improve the way we live our life.

I hope this helps some of you.

From the Archives: Lydia’s Cancer, and Atheist Philosophies of Death